The Ancient Dead

GX.Sigma · Oct 17, 2012

I don't understand why people want non-evil mummies. I thought all undead were evil. I thought that was the whole point of undead in the world of D&D.

Undead beings are creatures of negative energy, and are inherently poisonous and destructive to all life. The very existence of any undead creature is a great and terrible evil. That doesn't mean they all have to be bad guys all the time, but it does mean that even the good-guy ones can't get through protection from evil.

avin · Oct 17, 2012

GX.Sigma said:
I don't understand why people want non-evil mummies. I thought all undead were evil. I thought that was the whole point of undead in the world of D&D.

There's room for stories about good people cursed to undeath, redeemed intelligent undeads... and good aligned vampires didn't start with Twilight.

I think all alignments should be mere suggestions.

Walking Dad said:
What about naturally occurring mummies?

I see your point, sure, naturally ocurring mummies must exist. The point I dislike is automatically give every mummy the "tomb guardian" role.

VinylTap · Oct 17, 2012

How do naturally occurring mummies happen? What's more unnatural than the undead? Someone had to raise it at some point...

I think the idea of neutral mummies stems from the fact that mummies don't go out of their way to be selfish and hurtful to others. They're automation given a set task (protect the tomb)! When the tomb is safe they stop animating. I'm find with labeling all undead as evil though, I think its a bit of non-issue, as you run into the problem with a lot of undead. Are zombies evil or just hungry? either way they're getting a broad sword to the face. Giving a lot of undead an alignment is a bit of a misnomer, imo, but CE is as good as place for them as you could come up with.

Sentient undead are a lot different sure... but if a mummy king is raising the undead... its probably closer to a lich in rags anyway.

Klaus · Oct 20, 2012

It's worth noting that the FIRST mummy in mythology was Osiris, the most benevolent of Egyptian deities.

And as I mentioned upthread, mummies aren't automatons, they're vessels for the soul. In a fantasy setting, it is quite possible for a mortal to volunteer to guard his king for eternity, and submit to the ritual of mummification.

Jhaelen · Oct 22, 2012

GX.Sigma said:
I don't understand why people want non-evil mummies. I thought all undead were evil. I thought that was the whole point of undead in the world of D&D.

Sometimes it can be helpful to take a broader view and look into the treatment undead got in other rpgs. I've found both Ars Magica and The World of Darkness quite helpful in that regard. Both helped me to tell better stories featuring undead.

GX.Sigma said:
Undead beings are creatures of negative energy, and are inherently poisonous and destructive to all life.

Says who?
I think the only edition of D&D that described all undead as universally evil was 3e. And that's a pretty limited and myopic view. Both before and after 3e D&D featured non-evil undead.

What about ghosts trying to protect their kin? What about immortal lich-scholars seeking only to observe and record history? What about the righteous death-knight on a quest to slay its maker?

'Necromancy' originally means nothing more but _communicating_ with the dead. There's nothing inherently evil about it! It's just one of many ways to divine the future or get access to hidden knowledge.

To cut this short: Alignments are nothing but straightjackets issued by narrow-minded game designers to rein in the imagination of players and DMs. I recommend to ignore them, even and especially for undead beings.

The Ancient Dead

GX.Sigma

Adventurer

avin

First Post

VinylTap

First Post

Klaus

First Post

Jhaelen

First Post

Similar Threads

AD6_gamerati_skyscraper

Upcoming Releases